§ 14. Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state the view that the Law Officers of the Crown take with regard to the legality of the recent Proclamation to prohibit the landing of arms in Ireland; and whether an appeal has been, or is about to be, entered from the decision of Mr. Justice Boyd in the matter?
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLBefore that question is answered, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not a well-established rule that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is held to be confidential, and again and again information has been refused? I think it certainly contravenes the rule that while litigation is pending, or probably pending, questions should be asked about it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Minister will use his own discretion as to whether he chooses to state what the opinion of the 1864 Law Officers is. In answer to the second part, it seems to be a very innocuous question as to whether an appeal has been or is about to be entered.
§ Mr. RUSSELLI may say the answer has been revised by the Chief Secretary. The Law Officers have not now, and never had, any doubt as to the legality of the Proclamation prohibiting the importation of arms into Ireland. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 30th ultimo to his question on this subject. The case will come on for argument next Monday before the Divisional Court of the King's Bench.
16. Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Chief Secretary if there has been any interference with the police in Ulster, or any report of probable interference, such as to justify the adoption of special precautions for the preservation of the peace in that province; if so, will he state the date of the first intimation to him of such a contingency arising; and by whom the report dealing with the matter was made?
§ Mr. RUSSELLVarious reports have been submitted from time to time by the inspector-general to the effect stated. The first report of this character was on the 29th December, 1913.
Mr. F. HALLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War alleged the interference of the police as an explanation of the military demonstrations in Ulster?
§ Mr. RUSSELLNo, Sir; I am not aware.
§ 23. Mr. O'SHEEasked the Chief Secretary how many gun licences, under the 33 and 34 Victoria, c. 57, have been issued in the counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, and Londonderry, and the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, in each of the three years up to the 31st March last how many prosecutions under that Act have been instituted in the area mentioned in each of these years; and whether, in the case of any member of the body called the Ulster Volunteers who has 1865 carried a gun contrary to the said Act to the knowledge of the police, a prosecution has been instituted?
§ Mr. RUSSELLThe administration of the Gun Licence Duties in Ireland is in the hands of the Board of Customs and Excise, and I am unable to supply the hon. Member with the figures he asks for in the first two paragraphs. The answer to the third paragraph of the question is in the affirmative.
§ 46. Mr. LONGasked the Prime Minister whether he was aware in the first instance of the proposal to appoint Sir Nevil Macready to command the troops in Belfast and to be a resident magistrate?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, Sir.
§ 47. Mr. LONGasked the Prime Minister (i) whether there is any precedent for appointing a military commander to hold a civil appointment in a municipality, thus vesting supreme military and civil control in the hands of one man, a soldier; and (2) whether the fact that Sir Nevil Macready would have held the joint appointments would have authorised him to take any measure which seemed to him to be desirable, including the occupation of the city town hall and offices of the Lord Mayor, thus superseding civil and municipal government?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere seems to be some misapprehension about the character of this appointment. It was not intended that Sir N. Macready should interfere in any way with municipal government, nor would his appointment have authorised him to take any such measures as are indicated in Question 48. The object was and is that, in case of necessity, he should be in a position to co-ordinate the actions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the troops. It would be open (unless in a case of extreme and improbable emergency) to the local magistrates to call upon the military to assist the civil power, and also to accompany the troops in accordance with the King's Regulations. As regards precedents I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to 1866 the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Kent on Monday last As recently as the recent civil disturbances in Dublin, certain officers were appointed to the Commission of the Peace.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he would lay the terms of the warrant or patent appointing Sir Nevil Macready as a White Paper on the Table?
§ The PRIME MINISTERHe has now been appointed again. This refers to a past appointment.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONThe full terms?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have no objection at all to laying the terms upon the Table.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask whether the result of the powers given to Sir Nevil Macready would be to enable him not merely to co-ordinate the civil power and the military power, but also to subordinate the civil power to the military power?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir, I think not. That was certainly not the intention, nor, I think, would it be the effect.
§ Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Cornwallis, the Lord Lieutenant at the time of the Union, was also commander of the forces in Ireland, and that therefore he combined in himself, in one man, the whole civil and military power in order to carry the Union?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI believe, as a matter of history, that is true.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that is a precedent which he should propose, to follow in the present instance?
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSMay I ask whether the terms upon which Sir Nevil Macready is now appointed are the same as the terms upon which he was previously appointed?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have promised to lay the terms on the Table.
§ Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms are the same?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSo far as I remember they are the same.
49. MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether recently, before troops were ordered to be in readiness to proceed to Ulster or had proceeded to Ulster, a re quisition was sent in by any magistrate or police officer, as per paragraph 956, King's Regulations; and if not, why was this paragraph not acted upon in the first instance?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. The paragraph of the King's Regulations quoted does not apply.
§ 50. Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if he can now inform the House what are the appropriate steps to vindicate the authority of the law which he promised the Government would take in response to the recent rebellious exploit in the counties of Antrim and Down?
§ The PRIME MINISTERMeasures have already been taken which we hope will prove effective to prevent the possible recurrence of such incidents. The Government have under careful consideration the other aspects of the matter, but it would not be desirable at this moment that I should make any public statement.
§ Sir W. BYLESMay I ask, with great respect, whether the Prime Minister will consider that a national outrage of this magnitude and character, if allowed to go unpunished, will weaken the arm of the law, and diminish the respect for the law?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have said that the Government are certainly very carefully considering all the aspects of the case.
§ Mr. HUNTWould it not be possible to make the hon. and martial Member for Salford a general officer and send him over to Ireland?
§ 52. Mr. AMERYasked whether the orders issued by General Fergusson to the 1868 5th Division of 20th March relative to the option offered to officers were first submitted to General Paget?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir.
§ 53. Major HOPEasked whether, in the event of an officer being dismissed from the Army without trial by court-martial, his retiring allowance can be forfeited, except in so far as provided by Section 529, Pay Warrant, 1913?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI would refer the hon. and gallant Member to paragraph 517, Royal Warrant "In special circumstances to be determined by our Army Council, the retired pay granted to an officer on retirement, or any portion of it, may be suspended or withheld."
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEIs the willingness of an officer to accept dismissal rather than fight against his fellow countrymen to be put in the same category as the misappropriation of public funds?